Okay a trade was vetoed recently in my league. It is causing major discord from the league on both sides of the issue. There is clearly no collusion but obviously it is onesided based(which is also in the rules on the fact that Crawford is a proven stud

20team dynasty

Justin upton for CCrawford.

I realize that it is a dynasty & Upton has tremendous upside but he is atleast 2 years away from just beginning to produce and even then we dont know if he'll pan out.

powenM wrote:Okay a trade was vetoed recently in my league. It is causing major discord from the league on both sides of the issue. There is clearly no collusion but obviously it is onesided based(which is also in the rules on the fact that Crawford is a proven stud

20team dynasty

Justin upton for CCrawford.

I realize that it is a dynasty & Upton has tremendous upside but he is atleast 2 years away from just beginning to produce and even then we dont know if he'll pan out.

Upton is such an unknown quantity at this point, who knows what he will do in the bigs(or when he will do it). Crawford is still on the up of his career(Age 26) so its not like its a trade for someone old...

At this point its impossible to evaluate the long term value of a deal like this...maybe if Upton was in AAA, or a fresh callup. I would guess dynasty trade veto's are much more rare on "potential players" since everyone knows they are assuming a lot of risk, so this probably doesn't get vetoed... but I still don't like it, and definitely wouldn't take the Upton side at this point.

This is a difficult call. Crawford has alot of upside and a long career ahead of him. However, so does Upton and Morneau should be a top power hitter for a few more years. Personally, I would NOT veto this; however (not to cop out), I can understand if someone did vote to veto this transaction.